Hammontree v. Jenner
Court of appeal of California 1971
20 Cal.App.3d 528 97 Cal. Rptr. 739
Parties:
Plaintiff= Maxine Hammontree Owner of the store with husband
Plaintiff= Husband
Defendant= Jenner Has epileptic serious and was placed on probation by DMV
Procedural History:
Hammontree filed a suit against Jenner for negligence and strict liability. During the course of the trial, Hammontree dropped the negligence claim and pursued strict liability. The Court did not grant Summary Judgment on the doctrine of liability. The trial court then refused to instruct the jury on the claim of absolute liability. The case was appealed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Facts:
Defendant (Jenner) was driving when he suffered an epileptic seizure and crashed into the bicycle shop owned by Maxine Hammontree and her husband. Defendant testified to a history of seizures. Dr. Benson Hyatt has diagnosis his condition and had seen the defendant every 6 months because he was placed on probation by the DMV. Dr. Hyatt testified that defendant “was doing normally” and his medication prevented the seizures. Maxine is suing the defenders for personal injuries and property damage arising out of the automobile accident. Maxine was struck by the car.…show more content… Summary of arguments:
Defendant: Doctor believes it was safe for defendant to drive because he was performing normally He was taking medication and was placed on probation by DMV Had been seizure free
Plaintiffs:
He was placed on probation by DMV Knew of condition prior to driving Looking to have court override established law of the state He knew or should have known the risk of driving
